Closed jacobcook1995 closed 1 year ago
I guess a test would be to have an in-memory workbook with a couple of NA rows and then set the chunksize to 1 or 2 to keep it small?
Merging #83 (760b6be) into release/3.0.0 (b5b021a) will increase coverage by
0.04%
. The diff coverage is100.00%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## release/3.0.0 #83 +/- ##
=================================================
+ Coverage 69.00% 69.04% +0.04%
=================================================
Files 12 12
Lines 3639 3644 +5
=================================================
+ Hits 2511 2516 +5
Misses 1128 1128
Files Changed | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
safedata_validator/field.py | 93.52% <100.00%> (+0.04%) |
:arrow_up: |
:mega: We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more
Added a test for "NA" data entries for the DatetimeField. I had to change how the consistency checking is done as this was producing "Date or datetime data mixes ISO string and time formatted rows" errors when it shouldn't.
I also added a similar test + change to the consistency checking for the TimeField as this field uses a very similar logic.
Considered adding similar tests for the other fields but that felt like a real rabbit hole for an edge case.
This PR adds a check that the set of valid dates isn't empty before attempting to use this to update the temporal bounds. This comes from a weird edge where a chunk of rows contains entirely "NA" and so every single entry is ignored
I haven't added a test to demonstrate that this works, if you think of an appropriate one let me know.